Long‐term safety and tolerability of hyaluronidase‐facilitated subcutaneous immunoglobulin 10% as maintenance therapy for chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy: Results from the ADVANCE‐CIDP 3 trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Hyaluronidase-facilitated subcutaneous immunoglobulin (fSCIG) consists of subcutaneous human immunoglobulin G (IgG) 10% with recombinant human hyaluronidase (rHuPH20) and can be administered at the same dose and interval as intravenous IgG (IVIG). fSCIG recently received US approval as maintenance therapy for adults with chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP) and European approval for adults and children with CIDP after stabilization with IVIG. METHODS: ADVANCE-CIDP 3 (NCT02955355) was an open-label long-term extension of the Phase 3 double-blind randomized placebo-controlled ADVANCE-CIDP 1 study (NCT02549170) that examined fSCIG safety and efficacy as maintenance CIDP therapy. Primary outcomes were safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity. Efficacy was an exploratory outcome. RESULTS: The study provided 220 patient-years of follow-up data from 85 patients. Median (range) exposure was 33 (0-77) months. Patients received fSCIG every 4 weeks (88.2%) or every 3 weeks (11.8%). Median (range) 4-weekly IgG dose equivalent was 64.0 (28.0-200.0) g. Mean (standard deviation) infusion duration was 135.5 (62.8) minutes. Most adverse events (AEs) were mild or moderate and self-limiting. Of the 1406 AEs, only 48 were severe and 30 were serious. fSCIG-related AEs (n = 798) included infusion site reactions such as pain, redness, and pruritus. Three infusions (0.1%) were reduced in rate, interrupted, or stopped due to intolerability. Relapse occurred in 10 of 77 patients (13.0%); annual relapse rate was 4.5%. An anti-rHuPH20 antibody titer ≥1:160 was detected in 14 of 84 patients (16.7%); patients who tested positive (≥1:160) had similar relapse rates versus those who tested negative (16.7% vs. 12.3%, respectively). INTERPRETATION: ADVANCE-CIDP 3 demonstrated favorable fSCIG long-term safety and tolerability consistent with its established safety profile, and a low relapse rate, supporting use as maintenance CIDP treatment.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".